Taking "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance is a form of censorship and I thought liberals were supposed to be against that. If someone else did to profanity, sex, or violence exactly what liberals are doing to religion, liberals would be infuriated. Can someone please explain to me how liberals can think that you can't censor profanity, sex, or violence, but you can censor religion?
2007-05-18 12:42:03 · 15 answers · asked by Maid Mesmera 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I'm a Christian, and I'm not entirely convinced it should be there. I have no problems talking to God about it either. Our constitution specifically denies the government the right to establish a state church. By including the name of one religion's diety in our pledge of allegience to the republic, we're specifying which church has more freedom than the others in our Country. That isn't right, and Jesus himself would tell you it's not the best way to spread his message.
2007-05-18 12:50:52 · answer #1 · answered by Beardog 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, i've got not got self assurance that there must be a factor affirming "decrease than God" in the pledge of allegiance via fact no longer all people believes in an analogous factor. some people declare to be insulted via asserting that or listening to that in the time of the pledge, yet there additionally are others who'll in basic terms attempt and reason problems. it would be smart to basically get rid of the full complete pledge of allegiance via fact there is no factor in having it. once you advance right into a U.S. citizen you're already sure to the regulations, so what's the factor in having it? it appears that evidently that i will could desire to proceed to be silent on that part of the pledge via fact i'm Atheist. I doubt that the pledge will ever get replaced. Bre: toddlers have time in the past classification starts to desire and do despite they choose, so as that they did no longer get rid of their actual to have God via their factor. they have the appropriate to desire, yet p.c. to no longer, so if there is all of us to blame this is the toddlers for no longer doing what their faith demands of them mutually as they have the possibility.
2016-10-05 08:27:08 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it's a government thing right, the pledge is approved by the government... and "under God" was put in by the government in the 50s... was that censorship to change it from whatever it was then?
it has little to do with censorship... the government can't censor it's self... by definition... it only changes what it says, because it wants to and it is theirs to change...
everyone could still say it the old way if they wanted too and no one could arrest you...
it's like you changing the bumber sticker on your camaro... putting another bumber sticker on top of that... is that you censoring your own bumper sticker? or just changing your property how you want it changed?
but just as a side question... I've not heard of this in like 10 years? is someone doing something now?
2007-05-18 12:53:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I;m a liberal and I don't think under god should be taken out...but I also think that some shouldn't be called unamerican for choosing not to say it when taking the pledge.
2007-05-22 05:16:22 · answer #4 · answered by lxtricks 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was under a Conservative House and President that they tried to take "Under God" out of the pledge of allegiance.
Conseravatives took the 10 commandments out a courthouse also. But then, "The 10 Commandments" is not from the bible.
2007-05-18 12:50:10 · answer #5 · answered by Darth Vader 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You do not have to be a Christian to love your country. You do not even have to believe in God to pledge your allegience to your nation. The two are separate issues. They should be anyway.
2007-05-22 09:48:25 · answer #6 · answered by Penny K 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So now you're equating the American atheists and liberals? That would be like comparing repubs w/Nazis! I have yet to hear democrats proposing legislation to remove "under God" from the pledge. I have , however, seen the repubs building camps and interrogation centers. Which comparison is more appropriate?
2007-05-18 12:53:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Can't you worship God without the government endorsing it for you?
We got along fine for almost 200 years without God in the pledge, in fact it seems that the USA started going down the crapper about the time we changed the pledge.
2007-05-18 12:57:04 · answer #8 · answered by Nick F 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The pledge isn't a form of expression, so it can't be censored.
The 'under God' portion was added when the country was engaged in fierce ideaological conflict with communism, and, since the country was still pretty religious at the time, the 'godlessness' of the commies was emphasized, and the 'under god' bit added to emphasize that America - in spite of the sepparation of church and state - was godly.
It's outmoded, and, really, of such trivial importance that I surprise myself in writing this much about it.
2007-05-18 12:46:26 · answer #9 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 7⤊ 3⤋
Not only hypocritical, it's also floccinasinihililipilcation (sp?), in other words; useless. Based on the argument used to remove "under God", every state that flys it own flag should be cautious. There may be an American Civil Liberties Union super sleuth in a town near you.
2007-05-18 12:51:11 · answer #10 · answered by ggraves1724 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋